Again, I already read that article. It's full of BS.
Summary, section by section:
Disabling of Functionality - Only applies to protected content. Not a MS mandate, but a MPAA mandate. Applies to any OS that wants to legally play HDCP protected content. Don't like it, don't by Blu-ray/HD-DVD. Has ZERO effect on any other content. This has been proven over an over by tests published online!
Indirect Disabling of Functionality - completely false. Considering that an exploit has been written to use the system audio to feed back to the voice command via the microphone, it's obvious that the pathway IS NOT RESTRICTED.
Decreased Playback Quality - Again, only applies to protected content. Not a MS mandate, MPAA mandate. Required of all HDCP compliant hardware and OS's
Elimination of Open-source Hardware Support - False and misleading. When was the last time you saw a fully Open-Source video card? There is no restriction in the OS to prevent open source drivers (See below for "driver signing"
Elimination of Unified Drivers - This has more to do with the driver model overhaul than any evil DRM. Same issue was faced going from 98 to XP
Problems with Drivers - a) again due to changes in driver model (for the good, btw) and b) driver signing IS NOT REQUIRED and CAN BE DISABLED (see Vista FAQ in comp forum)
Denial-of-Service via Driver/Device Revocation - They can revoke the signing cert, just like any SSL cert provider can revoke your SSL cert. See that used as a DDOS attack recently? Thought not. Again, if you want to pirate with a funky driver, you can disable signing as a requirement (EVEN IN 64 bit!)
Decreased System Reliability - Not only completely baseless but also 180 degrees from the truth. Under Vista systems are MORE RELIABLE. For example, in Vista if the video driver crashes, Vista will restart the video subsystem and reload the driver without a reboot or BSOD. Under XP, that would be an instant BSOD and reboot.
Increased Hardware Costs - Unlikely and blown way out to left field on this one. Again though, this is a requirement to support HDCP protected content, will be required of all OS's that legally display it. Got an issue with it, bitch to the MPAA and/or don't buy Blu-Ray/HD-DVD content. The cost impact on the hardware makers will be minimum over time
Increased Cost due to Requirement to License Unnecessary Third-party IP - No different than any other technology they license. They don't have to make HDCP compliant components if they don't want them (or if people don't ask for them). Again, not a MS problem.
Unnecessary CPU Resource Consumption - Only applies when playing back protected content. Outside that, resource utilization for the driver checks is nil. This is easy to prove by just watching the idle CPU usage and monitoring for things like increased DPCs from drivers. They are not there.
Unnecessary Device Resource Consumption - AGAIN applies only when playing protected content (his own numbers prove it!) AGAIN a MPAA requirement, not MS.
How Effective is it Really? - Who cares. Since it has zero impact on my PC running vista but with no protected content, I sure don't
NONE of this is any different that what you will see when Apple starts shipping HD or Blu-Ray enabled Macs. It's the same thing that people with stand alone players will have to deal with. It has nothing to do with the OS. All Microsoft did was supply the end user with the ability to choose if they want to view HDCP content on their PC.
